[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: SML: Second Try

• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: SML: Second Try
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:59:11 -0500
• In-reply-to: <022301c2d0d7$a69c4380$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• References: <GHEDLDCGLHKOAICLGHKGOEKDCAAA.news@o...><200302100208.10648.gtn@r...><022301c2d0d7$a69c4380$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• User-agent: Opera7.0/Win32 M2 build 2637

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:40:14 +1100, Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...> 
wrote:

> Why is there fluff in XML?
>
> In publishing, documents don't only exist over the wire.

[very enlightening analysis/examples !]

>
> It would be strange to say "XML is a format for sending documents, but 
> this format does not need to be useful for people writing documents, or 
> assembling them, or using them".

This seems to me like a good argument for layering of XML specs, or 
pipelining XML processing tools, however you want to think about it.  Just 
as dear old C had a preprocessing step that allows macros to be defined and 
processed to ease the burden of typing, I'd like to see the "fluff" in XML 
processed up-front, and "compiled" into canonical syntax or an Infoset. 
This would keep the core simple, clean, and interoperable while allowing 
humans to author using the fluff or machines to author it directly.

 

• References:
  • RE: SML: Second Try
    • From: "Owen Walcher" <news@o...>
  • Re: SML: Second Try
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: SML: Second Try
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Next by Date: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Previous by thread: Re: SML: Second Try
• Next by thread: Re: SML: Second Try
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread